TY - JOUR
T1 - Ecological information and approaches needed for risk communication dialogs for acute or chronic environmental crises
AU - Burger, Joanna
N1 - Funding Information:
I thank the many people who have discussed ecology, environmental assessment, stakeholders, and environmental justice over the years, including M. Gochfeld, C. W. Powers, D. Kosson, K. Brown, A. Bunn, M. Greenberg, H. Mayer, K. Lowrie and other colleagues from CRESP, DOE, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, managers and scientists from EPA, regulators and resource trustees of the States of Washington, R. Jim (Yakama), Rex Buck (Wanapum), G. Bohnee (Nez Perce), and other Tribal members, and many others. This research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DE-FC01-06EW07053 through the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Rutgers Pinelands Research Station, Rutgers University, and Vanderbilt University, as well as the NIEHS Center of Excellence (NIH-NIEHS P30ES005022). The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. DOE, Rutgers University. Vanderbilt University, and other participating universities.
Funding Information:
This research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DE‐FC01‐06EW07053 through the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Rutgers Pinelands Research Station, Rutgers University, and Vanderbilt University, as well as the NIEHS Center of Excellence (NIH‐NIEHS P30ES005022). The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. DOE, Rutgers University. Vanderbilt University, and other participating universities.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.
PY - 2022/11
Y1 - 2022/11
N2 - Scientists, social scientists, risk communicators, and many others are often thrust into a crisis situation where they need to interact with a range of stakeholders, including governmental personnel (tribal, U.S. federal, state, local), local residents, and other publics, as well as other scientists and other risk communicators in situations where information is incomplete and evolving. This paper provides: (1) an overall framework for thinking about communication during crises, from acute to chronic, and local to widespread, (2) a template for the types of ecological information needed to address public and environmental concerns, and (3) examples to illustrate how this information will aid risk communicators. The main goal is providing an approach to the knowledge needed by communicators to address the challenges of protecting ecological resources during an environmental crisis, or for an on-going, chronic environmental issue. To understand the risk to these ecological resources, it is important to identify the type of event, whether it is acute or chronic (or some combination of these), what receptors are at risk, and what stressors are involved (natural, biological, chemical, radiological). For ecological resources, the key information a communicator needs for a crisis is whether any of the following are present: threatened or endangered species, species of special concern, species groups of concern (e.g., neotropical bird migrants, breeding frogs in vernal ponds, rare plant assemblages), unique or rare habitats, species of commercial and recreational interest, and species/habitats of especial interest for medicinal, cultural, or religious activities. Communication among stakeholders is complicated with respect to risk to ecological receptors because of differences in trust, credibility, empathy, perceptions, world view valuation of the resources, and in many cases, a history of misinformation, disinformation, or no information. Exposure of salmon spawning in the Columbia River to hexavalent chromium from the Hanford Site is used as an example of communication challenges with different stakeholders, including Native Americans with Tribal Treaty rights to the land.
AB - Scientists, social scientists, risk communicators, and many others are often thrust into a crisis situation where they need to interact with a range of stakeholders, including governmental personnel (tribal, U.S. federal, state, local), local residents, and other publics, as well as other scientists and other risk communicators in situations where information is incomplete and evolving. This paper provides: (1) an overall framework for thinking about communication during crises, from acute to chronic, and local to widespread, (2) a template for the types of ecological information needed to address public and environmental concerns, and (3) examples to illustrate how this information will aid risk communicators. The main goal is providing an approach to the knowledge needed by communicators to address the challenges of protecting ecological resources during an environmental crisis, or for an on-going, chronic environmental issue. To understand the risk to these ecological resources, it is important to identify the type of event, whether it is acute or chronic (or some combination of these), what receptors are at risk, and what stressors are involved (natural, biological, chemical, radiological). For ecological resources, the key information a communicator needs for a crisis is whether any of the following are present: threatened or endangered species, species of special concern, species groups of concern (e.g., neotropical bird migrants, breeding frogs in vernal ponds, rare plant assemblages), unique or rare habitats, species of commercial and recreational interest, and species/habitats of especial interest for medicinal, cultural, or religious activities. Communication among stakeholders is complicated with respect to risk to ecological receptors because of differences in trust, credibility, empathy, perceptions, world view valuation of the resources, and in many cases, a history of misinformation, disinformation, or no information. Exposure of salmon spawning in the Columbia River to hexavalent chromium from the Hanford Site is used as an example of communication challenges with different stakeholders, including Native Americans with Tribal Treaty rights to the land.
KW - eco-cultural
KW - eco-receptors
KW - environmental justice
KW - risk communication
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129828335&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85129828335&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/risa.13940
DO - 10.1111/risa.13940
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 35491404
AN - SCOPUS:85129828335
SN - 0272-4332
VL - 42
SP - 2408
EP - 2420
JO - Risk Analysis
JF - Risk Analysis
IS - 11
ER -